Matrix Theory: Relativity Without Relative Space or Time
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июн 2024
- It's the question that brought you here: what is the physical meaning of Relativity? For well over a century the answer to this question has eluded physicists, thinkers and scientists alike, including even Einstein himself -- but at long last, from out of the canonical labyrinth of confusion, dogma, and mathematical abstraction, some real, tangible answers are finally emerging. But to understand them, you are going to have to first make a choice... math, or physics?
Free your mind, and help support us on Patreon!
/ dialect_philosophy
Join Our Discord!
/ discord
Link to "The Loophole" video:
• Einstein's Relativity ...
Link to Veritasium's "Why No One Has Measured The Speed of Light" video:
• Why No One Has Measure...
The Mechanism for Physical Time Dilation explained:
• What Time Dilation ACT...
SOURCES AND REFERENCES:
Lindner, Henry. (2015). "On The Philosophical Inadequacy of Modern Physics and The Need For a Theory of Space"
henrylindner.net/Writings/Lind...
Einstein, Albert. (1920). "Ether and The Theory of Relativity"
einsteinpapers.press.princeto...
Einstein, Albert. (1914) "On the Relativity Problem"
einsteinpapers.press.princeto...
Einstein, Albert. (1905). "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"
www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...
Reichenbach, Hans. (1927). "The Philosophy of Space and Time"
altexploit.files.wordpress.co...
Mansouri, Reza & Sexl, Roman. (1977). "A test theory of special relativity: I. Simultaneity and clock synchronization." General Relativity and Gravitation. 8. 497-513. 10.1007/BF00762634.
www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Anderson, R., Vetharaniam, I., & Stedman, G.E. (1998). "Conventionality of synchronisation, gauge dependence and test theories of relativity." Physics Reports, 295, 93-180.
www.terra32.it/trusso/varie/An...
Contents:
00:00 - Intro
02:15 - The Construct
05:52 - The Real World
10:23 - The Matrix
17:50 - The Source 
Наука
![Moneybagg Yo - WHISKEY WHISKEY [feat. Morgan Wallen] (Official Audio)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kJamyq0WplE/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey there Viewers! We are very proud to present Matrix Theory here on RUclips, which (to the best of our knowledge) is an original unification of Einsteinian Special Relativity with Lorentzian Ether Theory. However, there was a LOT of information to pack into 25 minutes, and consequently many important details did not get the attention they deserved. In an attempt to address what are likely to be the main questions about the video, we have created an anticipatory FAQ here below. If you cannot find your question here, please leave it in a separate comment and we will try to respond to it as soon as we can, thank you! And yes, don’t worry - there will be follow-up videos!
Q1: “Is it really impossible to know the one-way speed of light?”
A: Yes - at least within the context of special relativity. This is in fact part of the theory’s foundations; for any experiment which could detect the one-way speed of light would disprove special relativity by establishing the existence of a preferred frame of reference. For more on this topic, see our video “The Loophole” linked in the description, or check out Veritasium’s “No One has Ever Measured the Speed of Light” Video.
Q2: “Why can’t an observer make physical measurements of objects in motion?”
A: You’ll find this question already addressed by a number of introductory videos on special relativity, which is why we omitted explaining it here. The short answer is that measuring the length or time intervals of an object in motion requires first establishing a notion of simultaneity. This in turn refers us back to the one-way-speed-of-light problem.
Q3: “Are these backgrounds supposed to be literal or figurative? I’m confused by their exact meaning.”
A: The backgrounds are essentially figurative; they are “maps” of how space and time will appear within frames traveling at certain velocities, relative to the observer making the measurements. The essential idea here to grasp is that in SR, observers are making maps of space and time by assigning spatiotemporal coordinates to various “events” which occur. They cannot assign these coordinates however without first making an assumption about the behavior of light. The respective assumptions made by each observer thus determines how these “maps” look for different observers and within different frames.
Q4: “What about the Lorentz transformations? How do they relate to these backgrounds?”
A: The backgrounds presented here are meant to be visually instructive; they are NOT mathematically precise and do not preserve all the relevant relations between two frames in relative motion. Indeed, to best achieve such precision, we should combine the respective space and time backgrounds into a single “spacetime” background. The student familiar with relativity may be aware of the “scissoring” of spacetime axes which occurs for frames in motion on this spacetime background; this scissoring contains all the same contravariant “growing and shrinking” behavior of the space and time backgrounds presented here in the video. Indeed, the symmetry of relativity can be understood by projecting out the contravariant components of the scissored spacetime axes.
Q5: “What about adding a third observer into the picture? Are the backgrounds used to ‘see’ this third observer as well?”
A: The background symmetry only holds between two observers; if we introduce a third observer who is already in motion whilst the first two are at rest, then when one of the first two observers is set into motion, they will not only remap/grow their own contracting lengths, but they will also have to partially remap/grow the contracted lengths of the third observer whose frame is already in motion. This occurs because the anisotropic behavior of light in the third observer’s moving frame gets remapped to being less anisotropic as the observer set into motion gains velocity. When the velocity of the observer set into motion reaches the velocity of the third observer and they share a rest frame, the lengths (and time durations) of the third observer will be fully remapped to their proper lengths (and times). Indeed, this partial-remapping which occurs in the three-observer scenario will lead us directly to the unique addition of velocities in relativity.
Q6: “I thought the ether was tossed out ages ago for being unobservable! Why bring it back?”
A: This is something of a misconception; relativity’s ascension over the ether theory was due primarily to its mathematical elegance and simplicity, as well as to the success of General Relativity which soon followed it. Special Relativity has always contained an equally unobservable element - observer-invariant light speed - although imprecise science communicators often present this invariance today as being experimental fact. The ether’s physical existence meanwhile is strongly inferable from the wave-equation mathematics upon which Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism was built.
Q7: “Isn’t positing physical length contraction and physical time dilation relative to an ether just as magical and silly as positing unobservable, observer-invariant light behavior?”
A: A hundred and twenty years ago, physical length contraction and time dilation certainly seemed like extremely ad hoc elements of a theory; however, our understanding of reality has greatly progressed since that time, especially with regards to the wave nature of electromagnetic matter. (For a suggestive explanation of physical time dilation, see our video “What Time Dilation Actually Is”.) Indeed, a solid understanding of wave mechanics will lead us directly to explanations for both physical time dilation and physical length contraction!
Q8: “What about General Relativity?! How does all this fit in with the curvature of spacetime?”
A: Stay tuned :-)
In order to generalize this to general relativity, are you going to use the river model to construct some kind of flowing either? Is that why you made the river model video?
@@chenlaura5958 That is what we are currently thinking! For at least the simplistic Schwarzschild picture, the river model works exceptionally well for explaining all the relativistic phenomenon around a mass.
I still don’t understand how the backgrounds work. If an observer was contracted, growing their background would still have the observer contracted relative to their own background. If the contracted observer said that their background was dilated so they could be brought to normal, then a stationary observer would also be dilated, not contracted. In order for them to grow what they think constitutes length, they would be shrinking their background. For example, if an observer had a proper length of 1 meter and was really contracted to 0.8 meters, they must assume that everything is (including them) is 1.25 times longer which means that their background shrinks by a factor of 0.8. Wouldn’t it make more sense to use the Lorentz transformations where the opposite of a Lorentz is another Lorentz transformation?
Great video and theory! Can you also check the third possibility of Galilean Relativity that the one-way speed of light is constantly related to the emitting source, and without Aether background with the wave nature an intrinsic spin of a photon whose frequency is determined by the relative energy at the proper time you have proposed?
So... Ether was proven not to exist back in the early 1900s / late 1800s, this idea of perception isn't reality and our senses can't be trusted dates back to Parmenides and Zeno in ancient Greece (and has been proven wrong just as long ago by people like Anaxagoras and Plato). Also, it's cute that you quote "Natural Philosophers" without explaining to people watching the video that this term described people who "inquired into nature" (yeah) but they're "causal theories", or "first principles" (as they called them) didn't have to have a causal relationship at all and weren't an exploration into physics but generally superstitious or theological mythos (read: creation stories) where they explained the Earth and stars in terms of floating on air or in an infinite ocean that stretched into eternity, where the earth (meaning the ground they walked on - not a planet floating in space) was at the centre of it, and the stars were holes punched in a far away back drop that let them see through to the burning rings of fire on the other side of it... or just that the origin story was entirely to do with the origins of the gods themselves (depending on which one we're talking about) and presupposed the universe to be contingent upon a pagan notion of Elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water).. Might want to explain some of that to people before you just gloss over "Natural Philosophers" as implied "Ancient Purveyors of now-long-forgotten Wisdom and Truths" -- gimme a break. Ancient humans cannot do anything as well as we can do it now and NO, they didn't know anything we've somehow forgotten or missed. This isn't Lord of the Rings, there is no magic or gods (sorry guys, I know it'd be cool if there was) and we KNOW how they built the Pyramids, yes we CAN build them with modern technology and YES WE CAN DO IT FASTER. Stop it. Just stop.
What I love about conversations and videos like this is that there are two options and you'll always get something out of it:
a) either you learn something new about your topic and think about it in a way you never thought of before, teaching people what questions to ask (resulting in clearer, better explanations for everybody).
Or b) you discover something groundbreaking and everyone profits from the updated knowledge accordingly.
Sometimes life is not so much about getting the right answers, but about asking the right questions.
Thanks for watching!
@@dialectphilosophy hey i have a question. If space and time are absolute than does that mean that spacetime curvature then does not exists?
Those are the good options, an unfortunate common third option is to close one's mind to any alternatives, "debunk" any that arise, and pretend current theory has all the answers as this gives you a psychological sense of comfort.
“No babe I didn’t contract! It was due to your frame of reference!”
Exactly what I was thinking all throughout the video 😂😂🤪
@@-_Nuke_-Frame of reference keeps growing due to absurd expectations 😂
@@JohnLee-bf2ux xD
It's not small, you're just moving too fast!
"No babe I didn't get shorter! It was due to your frame of reference!" - in a 3D space.
What really gets me is that our opinion of what constitutes reality (eg Lorentz invariance vs ether) determines which questions we think are worth asking and which theories worth testing. Eg, if we take ether theory seriously, then there is now suddenly much less reason to work on quantum-gravity theories that are Lorentz invariant, namely, because this symmetry is just a higher-level coincidence and a mathematical nicety for us observers, that should not be expected of a more fundamental description of reality. The other way around, there are notions and theorems which are claimed to be purely consequences of SRT and are inaccessible by a classical approach: spin (+ spin statistics theorem), magnetism, etc. It would have incredible explanatory value to give mechanistic explanations for these!
You are doing a great service here. This and the measurement problem are THE big gate keepers to the next leap forward. We have to accept and take seriously that we are mere observers!
Yes! Thank you, this is the comment I've been looking for! The physicists that understand what Dialect is saying and then say, "so what! If the predictions are the same as SR then who cares?" have me absolutely scratching my head. Of course there are implications! And those implications are very good for quantum theory.
As you say, the biggest argument against the absolute rest frame interpretations is that they completely undermine our understanding of magnetism, bringing us mostly back to the drawing board on that one! Makes me wonder if anyone has explored possible QM explanations of magnetism, or if that just hasn't happened because we've assumed magnetism is solved for 100 years?
@@erinm9445 can you elaborate on what you mean by QM explanations of magnetism? my understanding is that electromagnetism is *incredibly* well predicted by quantum field theory.
This illustrates just how absolutely critical it is to get the “problem” right! If one gets the problem wrong and then solves for that, it can lead everyone down a pointless rabbit hole and derail science and research for decades or even centuries. If incremental changes are not yielding results then one has to revisit the very premise that started the current theory and possibly start anew. The past is many times the key to the future!
It seems like a lot of researchers spend a lot of time making observed deviations fit their theories rather than questioning whether their theory is missing something fundamental. The math is already difficult enough to understand that they don’t want to complicate it with more. It’s easier to make the assumption that physics is well behaved and that universe is well behaved and that everything is mostly homogenous and isotropic on a large enough scale.
Gravitational waves cause the moving object to undergo time dilation with dobller effect. Therefore, the object experiencing time dilation becomes physically shorter. Being the center of gravity in the ether, it is a constant observer at all times. therefore the universe cannot be solipsistic. Gravitational waves break mathematical symmetry. Of course Einstein didn't believe in the existence of gravitational waves? Also Gravitational waves have a frequency that keeps relative time consistent in a gravitational field.
So far you STILL haven't really taken any step beyond the already existing theory of Relativity.
You simply added an assumption that there is one frame of reference which corresponds to physical reality.
Unfortunately it is impossible to know which frame of reference that is and therefore it is still easiest to assume that I am in that frame (unless undergoing acceleration) and by assuming those 2 extra things we are right back at normal Relativity without the extra assumptions.
Still curious if you can make something of it in the upcoming videos, I'm hopeful but doubtful since you made some errors talking about acceleration previously and that is where this topic will have to lead eventually.
He is proposing a way to *conceive* of relativity, while still maintaining all the mathematical and predictive power. Matrix Theory as he describes it straddles physics, philosophy, and pedagogy. It’s not an alternative to Relativity but an explanation of it that makes sense to people with human brains (vs aliens like Tegmark :-))
@@possibledog So in other words, it adds nothing to the science, it's just relativity for people who are chronically in denial about the nonexistence of an invisible dragon in my garage that I call ether that scientists haven't paid any attention to in over 100 years because it adds nothing.
As soon as you postulate a preferred inertial Frame of Reference (AKA "The Ether"), it's apparent that The Ether must be defined as stationary. (Otherwise, you must define its motion with respect to some other inertial FoR, which makes "The Ether" a superfluous mathematical construct.) Once you recognize The Ether as stationary, there is effectively no preferred inertial FoR, because all inertial FoR's can be described as possessing a constant offset trajectory with respect to The Ether. Thus, you're back where you started with Special Relativity.
The issue is that your saying "existing theory of relativity" without being specific about the interpretation
@@posqeakThere's no real interpretations of it, is there? (apart from the ones stated in this video) It is what it is. People don't really interpret it because there's no need to.
The math is the math and it matches observations.
Dear Dialect,
I haven't watched the full video yet - but I want to point out something that I had commented on a previous video (the one about episilon values). It has to do with your claim that no method exists of establishing a notion of simultaneity in order to measure the one-way speed of light.
I agree with you that, absent any preset method of synchronization of spatially separated clocks, only the two-way speed of light may be empirically measured. However, I disagree with you that the choice of epsilon is purely a matter of convention.
The important fact to realize is that Einstein was not the first to put forward an operational definition for simultaneity (in his case, based on light signals). Even Newtonian mechanics requires an operational definition of simultaneity - except here, simultaneity is defined so as to ensure the validity of Newton’s Laws of Motion. This is what forms the basis for the definition of inertial coordinate systems. In fact, Newton’s Laws of Motion can be understood as being the statement that mechanical inertia is homogeneous and isotropic in its behaviour - and this necessarily REQUIRES an operational basis of simultaneity.
What Einstein realized was that the synchronization convention obtained by light signals is the SAME as that required to ensure the validity of NLM in inertial frames. This is an empirical statement, not a convention. It is a result of empirical observation - not theory - that e=½ is the valid synchronization within all inertial frames. If Galilean Relativity were to be true, then yes - the value of epsilon would change between inertial frames (although again, not in an arbitrary fashion but in accordance with empirical observation)
I would like to recommend some articles that helped me understand this conclusion -
Teaching Special Relativity: mathpages.com/home/kmath684/kmath684.htm
This one covers the need for operationally defined simultaneity EVEN within Newtonian Mechanics.
A Primer on Special Relativity: mathpages.com/home/kmath307/kmath307.htm
This one covers a derivation that the correct transformation between inertial frames must be either Galilean OR Lorentzian - while only invoking the Principle of Relativity and an assumption regarding reciprocity.
What is an Inertial Coordinate System?: mathpages.com/home/kmath386/kmath386.htm
Love your videos, Dialect. I feel that you create some of the most thought-provoking physics content on the platform.
How was it empirically observed? And does that mean any other value of e would mean NLM are not preserved in an arbitrary frame?
@@lih3391 Any prediction made correctly be SR - whether it be the precise description of the slowing of moving clocks, mass-energy equivalence, etc - is based on the assumption that e=1/2 in all inertial reference frames. Therefore, the conclusion is forced on us by experiment.
As for the specific problem of measuring one way light-speed, things are a bit complicated. You see, we need to find a way to synchronize clocks using NLM as our guide (and not light). EG: Consider two identical particles initially at rest next to each other. At time t=0, let them exert mutual impulse on one another and start moving apart. The distance they travel must be measured with standard rods. Then, the correct synchronization of clocks is one in which NLM is satisfied and the two identical particles travel equal distances in equal times. In principle, such a system will allow us to measure the one-way speed of light. However, such a setup is difficult to make and is probably the reason why (to the best of my knowledge) we haven't measured one-way speed directly yet.
But the evidence confirming it indirectly as mentioned above forces us to conclude e=1/2.
@@amalnambiar11 I think he said that e could be different and experiments would still work, but math would be more complicated therefore experiments and expected results are planned assuming e=1/2
@@sheerun My point is that choosing a value for e is not just a convention with no significance.
For an observer moving at constant velocity, he can choose coordinates that match to any arbitrary value for e.
However, only ONE of those frames can be one in which Newton's Third Law holds true (In fact, you can think of this law as basically saying that inertia is isotropic)
Using light isotropy is a convention, yes.
But there is no guarentee that taking light isotropy will ALSO give inertial isotropy.
And yet it does. This is the physical content of SR.
@amalnambiar11 Wow. This is deep! Thank you very much for the links!
In short, this is what your links say:
1. Inertial reference frames should be defined as frames in which all 3 of Newton’s laws hold. Not just the first law!
2. One does not need light signals to construct such a frame.
3. Furthermore, it is possible to intuit a class of transformations between such inertial reference frames using only kinematic considerations that follow from very ordinary experience namely: homogeneity and isotropicity of space, reciprocity and transitivity of relative velocity.
4. In fact, the isotropicity of space follows directly from Newton’s 3rd law, by which two identical bodies initially at rest and acting mutually on each other would have to travel equal distances in equal times in opposite directions after separation.
5. Already, from these kinematic considerations alone, the Lorentz-form of the transformations emerges (up to a constant) despite not even once considering electromagnetism or light and its (one- or two-way) speed!
In fact, the speed of light is only required to fix that single constant that is left over after the kinematic considerations.
Interestingly, if one instead sets this constant to zero, then one simply obtains Galilean transformations.
On the other hand, Einstein’s genius was to recognize, through special relativity, that this constant is in fact the reciprocal of the speed of light squared. This achieves consistency with experimental observations regarding electromagnetism and the speed of light.
It seems to me from this discussion that the Lorentz transformation (or at least its form) is crucial to explain our common experiences of physical reality. Any explanation that rejects the form of the Lorentz transformation would then necessarily be wrong.
Since the aether-theory necessitates a manifestly different transformation from the Lorentz transformation, it therefore cannot be right.
Note that I’m not saying special relativity is right. I do recognize its fundamentally epistemological nature. Rather I’m saying that if there is an ontological interpretation for our observations of reality, then it cannot be the aether theory.
Note also that if any of our starting four kinematic considerations turn out to be false, then, and only then, could the aether theory become plausible. But it’s difficult to see how these considerations could be wrong, or how the aether, if it exists, could affect them.
Despite coming to this conclusion, I’m extremely thankful to @dialectphilosophy for their thought-provoking, skillful and expertly pedagogical videos. I probably would never have gained the understanding I have now without them. This topic is evidently one that leaves many people scratching their heads even after studying it in college. So I really appreciate @dialectphilosophy for boldly prompting these discussions and probing the dark and miry regions of our misunderstanding.
I HAVE BEEN WAITING SO LONG FOR THIS!!!!
Fascinating, i feel the reason this sort of thing isn't usually focused on in physics, is that we only have our senses, and no way of observing the fundamental nature of reality, and thus focus is put on epistemology over ontology
What do you think of my analogy?
Imagine you are driving a car at high speed during a light rain.
As you drive quickly through light rain, more raindrops hit your windshield than if you were stationary making the rain appear much heavier and more intense. The raindrops seem more densely packed from your perspective in the moving car (Length Contraction.)
Similarly, you experience a more condensed version of events (raindrops) happening in the same time frame from your perspective (Time Dilation.)
Meanwhile, to a driver parked still on the roadside, the rain's intensity appears mild and constant throughout. From his perspective, the reason you are experiencing more raindrops hitting your windshield is the fact that your car is moving at a angle relative to the motion of the rain.
In this analogy, the rainfall would be the flow of events and raindrops would be the events themselves.
The situation is as follows: Physicists are doing A. Neo-Lorentzians do B which contains A, but hides it and then claim they do not need A, as they did B. The Universe simply has length contraction and time dilation. If you call it fundamental or "effective" does a priori not matter. They are there, you have to compute them. Even worse, when you switch to the reference frame of an accelerated observer, you inevitably get curvature, since your curved line getting straight, means straight lines will become curved. You will also see that the rate at which time gets dilated depends on the distance from you and (in more complex situations) the rate of length contraction is dime dependent. I am btw. referring to Rindler coordinates and proper coordinates.
Having established this, you will have to deal with that. You will now go to your mathematician of choice and ask him "Hey, I have here some phenomena which contract and curve space and time. How do I mathematically handle that?". They will answer: "Well normally lengthes and angles are described by metric tensors on manifolds". So you take, what they give you and build a physical theory with that math. What you will end up with is special and flat general relativity.
It is not a coincidence that the mathematics of relativity is (relatively) simple. It is so, because lengthes contracting and straight paths curving is naturally described via metric tensors. If you call this metric tensor fundamental (like relativists) or effective (like Neo-Lorentzians) does not matter. It is there. Similarly 4D-spacetime is there. Why? Because as mentioned in accelerated systems length contraction can depend on time and time dilation on space. And the only way to incorporate that into a Riemannion formalism is to combine them into one manifold.
Once again, you cannot change these things. They are necessary to describe the plethora of phenomena out there. Now, what Neo-Lorentzians do is they take these few objects (metric tensor, covariant derivatives, geodesic equation, coordinate transformation rule, etc) they introduce a second coordinate system, with some fundamental properties, and rules how this coordinate frame relates to the coordinate frame at hand. They then transform every object given in the original coordinate frame into their new coordinates and throw out all the mathematical structure given by the Riemannian formulation. Instead they use their imposed fundamental properties to relate all the numbers they now have to each other. However, since you killed off all the structure, the ten numbers in the metric tensor which would have naturally combined in the Riemannian formulation are now floating somewhere in space and hence you have to impose 9! (that is a factorial) equations to tell how they relate. The same happens for every other object. In that manner, a few objects and concepts (metric tensor, covariant derivative, geodesic equation, curvature tensor, etc) with a few fundamental rules relating them become a mess of a mathematical situation. That happened because instead of listening to mathematician, Neo-Lorentzians try to do complex geometry with the mathematical toolkit of a high-school-math teacher.
However, nothing was won. Everything that was present in the relativistic description is still present in the Neo-Lorentzian. Of course! It has to be. In the end everything predicted by relativity has to also appear in Neo-Lorentzian-formulations. But Neo-Lorentzians are not aware of that. They think they have truly found a different treatment, while they are doing Riemannian geometry hidden behind a mess of equation.
To finalize, we can talk about a lot of things. Is spacetime truly curved or is it just a force field, hidden by the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass? Who knows. But I believe there is absolutely no debate that 4D spacetime equipped with a metric tensor is the way to think about the world. It is simply the mathematically correct way to treat things getting curved and bent. Denying maths helps no ones cause.
Having said that, Riemmanian geometry has furthermore so many advantages. For example, it couples to mass in a brutally natural and obvious way. Something that Neo-Lorentzians can only explain via imposing even more obscure relationships. Furthermore, combining the effects of these curvature effects with other forces or interactions is trivial. Simply replace derivatives with covariant derivatives. Once again Neo-Lorentzians have to preimpose several equations for every possible interaction out there individually.
Having now established how much Riemmanian treatment of physics is better, I do think Occam's Razor is worth considering. Why not just believe the maths. How dare we overwrite our personal, completely uneducated believes over the laws of the universe that nature has provided.
Replying so I can save for future thought
Bravo
In other words: who cares what's physical and what's abstract! Math is simpler and nicer, and more fun atcually, so why would you fall out of line, millions of flies can't be wrong!
Except physics is stuck for several decades and attempts to integrate Riemmanian treatment into quantum theories results in such a mess even computer algebra gives up.
I say give those folks a chance. You're not moving forward much with your Occam Razor anyway.
I'm a theoretical physicist and I hate this type of thinking so much. Typical anglo answer. There is a reason Schrödinger was shocked about the uncaringness of Americans regarding quantum mechanics. There is a reason why Copenhagen is the worst cope of humanity. Quastions like this are exactly the reason Machs principle opened up Einsteins eye. Being this trustful of math alone is exactly the reason it took humanity 50+ years of String physics without providing us with a single damn thing. One of the only modern ideas I like is Oppenheims approach which is modest and shows the will of a physicist not a mathematician.
This type of thinking is destructive for physics since novel ideas always came from intuition and solid experiments. Theory is actually the hardest part in physics, as one CANNOT trust the math always -> see the paper from Kerr regarding mathematical black holes etc.
This vibe shift people falsely accuse Einstein of and I would say the exact opposite: Einstein was a pure theoretician with a strong mathematical reasoning but all his ideas came from intuition and philosophical underpinnings and not math. This different from Witten style "if the math produces it, it has to exist" type of nonsense. Physics needs to describe the world we live in and not the one we ought to be. That's one of the reasons for the big stagnation, it's the dogmatic believe in pure logic, which is actually funny since Gödel in a way killed that idea at least a little bit after Hilbert thought the same (even though I love Hilbert work).
So effectively speaking, any "real" theory proposing x*D+1D dimensions where some Hopf fibration over some holographic manifold correspond to this and that can be dismissed as pure fanfiction because in an effective manner it has to at least provide the same effects at the boundary as the shitty theories. This goes for many boomer theories. I think the exception is TQFT (maybe CFT in condensed matter) and all it's flavours, but modern cosmology and particle physics (especially everything beyond) is absolutely laughable at best.
@MrZelduck thanks for your interesting comment. Although I don't share some of your aesthetic principles (nor your interpretation of how Occam's razor applies here), I do think you state your case well.
Anyway, what I'm really here for is to ask if you can share the names/links of any papers that lay out the Neo-Lorentzian framework you describe. In particular, can you recommend any papers that attempt to extend neo-Lorentzian relativity to gravity (and any papers that attempt to refute these attempts)?
Thanks,
Congratulations! One of the best approaches in the search for reality. I have dedicated my entire life to understanding space and time, and of them, 40 years studying the concepts underlying Maxwell's Equations... Please don't take too long for the continuation, I don't have many more years! ***** [ Felicitaciones! Uno de los mejores acercamientos en la búsqueda de la realidad. He dedicado toda mi vida a entender el espacio y el tiempo, y de ellos, 40 años estudiando los conceptos subyacentes en las Ecuaciones de Maxwell... Por favor, no tarden mucho para la continuación, no dispongo de muchos años más! ]
Do you believe that magnetism can be explained mechanistically?
Why not study relativity?
Yes mechanical newtonian simpleton way of seeing things. Like stuck in between 18th and 19th century.
Congratulations for this series. It’s mind blowing!
Can't wait to see how you explain length contraction and relativity of simultaneity with your theory.
Length contraction arises from movement through the ether, basically the ether is regarded as the one true substance from which all matter arises(search Tesla infinitesimal whirls). Due to matter being made of the same "stuff" it contracts as it pushes through ether. Relative simultaneity is just a perspective illusion that is caused by our measuring devices contracting and slowing. Observers can't draw the same grid over space just like the animations show.
@@delvish9622 What about quantum field theory?
@@edfs903 Layers of abstraction that are accurate within limits, but conceptualizing the ether as a super fluid should clear things up, in fact there's something called superfluid vacuum theory which is being researched. It's just ether by another name because you can't say the word ether.
Some awesome animation there! And I like that you point out that the "background" spacetime is an abstraction - not physical.
finally a new video. Happy new year man!
Simply the best physics channel :)
Ideas, explanations, graphica, music... ❤
Mindblowing! The greatest physics channel on RUclips
One of the most professional too. I salute them!
Except for the whole being wrong thing, besides that, great channel.
@@kylelochlann5053 could you ellaborate on what is wrong please?
Nothing is wrong...😂@@kylelochlann5053
What about the stick flying through the barn, it would fit inside only if the barn is aligned in the ether frame? If the barn is moving fast relative to the ether, the stick would fit when going left-to-right, but not right-to-left, for example? Isn't this how we could pinpoint the ether frame?
The problem is that these are thought experiments designed to illustrate concepts, such an experiment is far beyond our means to actually conduct.
Thanks for explaining these topics to us so eloquently! ❤ As a physicist I was indeed taught that the space-time connection was real. Great to see there is a much more physically grounded interpertation. Never thought c+c=c made much (physical) sense anyway 😂. Keep up the good work! 👍
Frankly I find this Dialekt one of the least perspicuous of all episodes. After a third of the way through I was getting confused and at the halfway mark it had become a pedagogically impenetrable jungle. I find the standard SR explanation _less_ bewildering.
Two years ago the channel was quite intriguing and thought-provoking. Now I fear the outstanding graphics are in danger of exuberantly wagging the explanatory dog.
Already really stoked for the next part! Thanks a lot, will probably have to watch this again.
Ok, already happened. Twice was enough to get it luckiely. Some people just take a bit longer 😅 .
Not just a video it is a masterpiece.
Thank you for this beautiful video, amazingly animated and narrated as always! Made me chuckle when the astronaut was riding his rocket like a motorbike.
Worth the wait. Really clear well put together video though I'll probably have to watch it another time or two to fully get every point. I'm excited to see where the discussion leads from this.
Interesting inversion of Matrix theory, that rather than a universal simulation imposed upon our minds from an external source, our unique individual Matrices are imposed upon the universe by our minds.
Sounds sorta like Kant
@@apopheniac4231 yes, in that it acknowledges an underlying objective reality, while maintaining awareness of the distortions we impose on it by our limited perspectives. However, in acknowledging our limitations, and investigating the dynamics of the distortions, we can nonetheless probe the nature of the objective reality, even if our access to it is indirect.
Sounds similar to hindu buddhist cosmologies
Love these videos and concepts. I feel I need a written paper and code to understand this well.
However, I place big importance on falsifiability.
Will your theory be making empirical predictions?
i.e., is there some type of empirical prediction we could do in the conceivable future that proves or disproves it compared to the more popular interpretations?
I think this is my favorite series relating to relativity so far, since your previous interpretations on acceleration were pretty weird to me, or maybe just underexplained and I didn't understand too much because of that.
Simply an awesome video. Can't wait for the next installment. ❤
Enhanced with instrumentation or not, all science studies perceptions only. Not saying that is directly applicable here but that does often get missed or even entirely forgotten across the board. & its the case regardless of what metaphysical assumptions one might have. We generally think our perception of the outside world "is" the world, as opposed to some sort of copy modulated by it. The implications can vary across paradigms though.
I absolutely agree. What is more, physicists have obtained certain measurement interactions between objects and labeled these measured interactions as "properties". Examples are mass, charge, magnetism. Then a lot of effort is expended to explain the properties, instead of understanding the measurements and the interactions.
Thanks for bringing this to RUclips.
Are these videos made by a team? They are incredibly well-produced and insightful
This was really cool. You should do a video on ontology vs epistemology - found that part very interesting.
💫🙏
He has one already i think, give it a search!
tbh I think this video said everything that needed to be said on that front. Perhaps even more than necessary.
@@2tehnik it didn’t even define those things dummy. 🤡🤦♂️
I have the same thought as you do in chapter two just can’t describe it myself and you pull it out of my lips. Thanks.
Math is an excellent tool can only helps us to draw precisely what’s in our mind and not what’s in the reality.
Excellent video, as usual. I didn't quite understand your explanation as to why a moving observer sees objects at rest as shorter. I'll have to watch it again. I know it works. I figured it out using light beams like the ones you used in your animations. Other than that, I find the explanation in the video perfectly clear and absolutely correct.
You're building up quite a suspense with your series of videos. It's going to be worth it in the end when you explain your main insights. I hope people are paying attention.
Thank you for watching! We skimmed over a lot in this video, so don't hesitate to ask questions. The point here was to give an adequate overview of the theory, and so yes, we will indeed be tackling many details in greater depth down the line.
Regarding your question: first, one must recognize that the behavior of light in an observer's frame moving relative to the ether is anisotropic, but this anisotropy is unobservable, thanks to the one-way speed of light problem. Next, if this moving observer chooses to use Einstein's axiom before making their measurements, they will remap the anisotropic light behavior in their frame to being isotropic.
Now consider an observer who is actually at rest with respect to the ether. Light behavior is isotropic in their frame, but it gets remapped to being anisotropic by the moving observer. Since the light beam now has further to travel (from the remapped perspective) the length of their frame must also get remapped to being shorter. This is equivalent to what we were indicating with the "growing background" visualization used in the video, which we thought would be a little more visually digestible, but likely it needed more connecting back to the isotropy/anisotropy of light behavior with which observers construct notions of space and time.
@@dialectphilosophy Hi mister, can i make you some questions? There is space deformation or space curvature in this model or not? Is space something physical or just a relation between physical things in the model? If there is no space curvature what causes gravity? Ether curvature or quantum fields curvature? Ether in this model could be just quantum fields or quantum fields could be just properties behavior of the ether?
Thanks if you see it and respond.
Very nice video. Always needed opinions on this as relativity feels very mathy and incomplete. Thank you. And keep on the good work.
I keep coming back to these videos. I love it.
This videos is gold. Thanks for such an amazing work in terms of knowledge and graphic representation 😊
I, a naive student, thought the Michelson-Morley experiment is what disproved a static ether. I'm looking forward to seeing how you resolve that and how you deal with gravitational dilation/contraction.
Make sure to watch the one-way speed of light video underneath this one.
@@clemonsx90 I've watched then all. I love them. I don't know what that has to do with either of the points I raised.
isn't the resolution just that Lorenzian relativity implies that motions of the ether cannot be detected? So things like the MM experiment should not be a surprise.
Once you accept length contraction of the testing apparatus in the direction of motion, MM is explained pretty easily by it. It disproved the existence of the aether only if it works exactly the way they thought it would in 1900
It was justified at the time, but I feel that they were missing a lot of pieces of the puzzle back then. I bet the discussion would have been quite a lot different if we had discovered quantum mechanics before relativity.
@@TerrifyingBird Hmmm. Now that you say it, I think you're probably right. Because it doesn't seem like this discussion actually makes any testable predictions that would distinguish it from SR so far. Or did I miss something?
Dude, my pencil never shrinks.
Sounds very intriguing. I hope some type of experiment or observation can be made to validate these ideas.
The only one that I can think of, measure the one way speed of light!
Oh wait, that's impossible 😅
I feel like the name Matrix Theory is already taken. There's already two uses, the mathematical one and the physics one referring to the BFSS matrix model. Love your videos!
Oops! COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT ALARM! 😂
I think that instead of naming it matrix theory, we should call it, egocentric theory! Since everyone is such an egomaniac the refuse to admit that they are in motion! 😂😂😂
Maybe you've done another video to answer this question but - the Michaelson Morley result is conventionally interpreted as an explicit measurement showing light moves thru no background or either.
Are you throwing out that interpretation by asserting that light's velocity is anisotropicic?
Thx.
i've watched all his videos but I'm a normie just into space for fun. I'm pretty sure he argues that light is anisotropic, yes. Watch his video on time dilation.
What anisotropic means?
@whiteeye3453 It means that light has different properties depending on direction and or frame of reference.
This sounds like it should be called “The Dead Simulation Theory” or “Lost Simulation Theory” because a matrix from what I know, is more digital than in-between physical reality.
Absolutely amazing!!! What software do you use to create these astonishing physic and math viduals????
i didnt catch it, did you define a frame?
how large are these frames?
also how do you measure ether?
--
i think there are some real loose bolts holding measurements with feelings here.
maybe when you say ether... you mean drinking it?
-
i am really not grasping your justification that things are constantly shifting in size, based on speed, and "frame". is there a frame size that makes this happen, a specific speed that starts smooshing things?
My main issue with this theory is that I have never seen Lorentz's ether theory made to be compatible with the FLRW metric. While we know the FLRW metric was a bit over simplistic as it assumed perfect isotropic distribution of the mass energy tensor, it still led us to the prediction of the big bang and the expansion of the universe today. There are still issues in cosmology, sure, but I've never seen an ether model that is consistent with the expansion of the universe.
For instance, how would we physically describe how objects move relative to us faster than light in our co-moving frame? Is the ether between us expanding? What's the physical mechanism behind that? It was the inconsistency of gravity and special relativity that gave us general relativity, which then produced the FLRW metric, and ether theory hasn't had anything to offer since.
While I understand what you're getting at with how physics has moved away from "materials," the mathematical models that have been produced have served us very well. It was the joining of SR and QM that led to the best production in all of science in QED. Both of those models are purely mathematical.
If what you're objecting to is a kind of "modern Pythagoreanism," I'd have to ask on what basis you have an issue with it? How do you know that there are "materials" out there and that everything isn't just math? They are very different ontologically sure, but if the ontology of materialism doesn't have anything to bring to the table scientifically then, like many physicists today, I'll have to default to the idea that reality is purely mathematical until it stops serving us.
Sad
@@viyye great response 👍
@@thetelescreen372 I just thought you would at least understand alot of time and money has been spent curve fitting these mathematical models to the world around us, and the theories become more ridiculous by the minute,
So of course they will have some usefulness given the amount of time and good minds (not great, otherwise they would have realised all they were doing was just curve fitting) have worked on them.
It about time we invested in something a bit more grounded, while using the mathematical curve fits as guide lines till the grounded theories are able to stand by themselves.
You should be aware that just because a theory has some use, that doesn't make it true.
It's a terrible thing to want to keep a theory just because it makes some predictions no matter how fantastical it is, when we have more lucid theories that are well grounded that have the potential to take us beyond where we are.
@@viyye yea sorry, idk what theory you're talking about, but I hope it's not the expansion of the universe. I've measured the redshift myself, definitely expanding. You seem to want to suggest that theories are "losing their grounding" but you didn't mention a single theory I brought up, wonder why
@@thetelescreen372 I speak about all mathematical so called physics, red shift is an observation or measurement, this is not what I am talking about.
The fact that you cannot see this is rather concerning!
It's funny how in lecture 1 of a special relativity course we derive time dilation and length contraction from the anisotropy of light bouncing off comoving mirrors and then immediately reject this as the actual explanation.
😂 😅😅
but the lorentzian hypothesis requires discrete spacetime, does it not? so it's still falsifiable as long as it's assuming discreteness. I agree that there needs to be some underlying field theory, but in order for such a thing to make sense, it's going to need to be quantized - and knowing what space it's quantized in is the whole problem!
... I think. I don't do physics math enough to think I actually understand
@@laurenpinschannelsquantization is a property of systems when they are bound by potentials. This restricts the degrees of freedom of the system. There's nothing fundamental to it. The efforts to discretize spacetime stem from the erroneous assumption that quantum mechanics is a complete theory, or in other words that the wavefunction is a real description of the complete state of the system.
Your best video so far buddy
I equally deeply appreciate and also wince at your gall sometimes.
This is a very poorly expressed explanation. You didn't define the background. Matrix theorists do not believe in aether, but in quantum fields (which are aether-like, but having mathematical, not physical, wave-like structure). You left out everything related to string theory. You neither named nor explained noncommutivity, but just confusingly expressed it in generalities.
You seemed to falsely attribute Matrix theory to Lorentz and falsely claimed that many believe that Lorentz conflicts with Einstein when Einstein's Special Relativity is based on Lorentz gamma!
Lorentz gamma never depended upon aether, which required mathematical and verbal acrobatics to include it. In fact, Lorentz produced his aether theory to fit his equation, not the other way around.
Einstein himself referred to the background as a "fabric", even though the term directly contradicts the principles of Relativity and the geometric math he based it on, and which has never been demonstrated. Einstein himself believed in an aether and only begrudgingly removed it from his theory by Minkowski's insistance, who was right, but for the wrong reasons.
They were made to cooperate by design. Therefore they cannot become "logically self-consistent" if they already are. They were not logically inconsistent before merging. They were already logically consistent except where they venture into "aether" and "fabric", which is what renders them completely useless when attempting to predict aether-like or fabric-like effects.
Most importantly, you didn't explain why it is called "Matrix theory", instead associating it with the movie The Matrix, which only confuses the audience. It has nothing to do with altering perceptions, but with translating distances with many-dimensional (string theory) matrices.
Really, you ended up in the same place you started because clearly you do not understand either Matrix theory or Special Relativity. (You parrot it, but you do not understand it.)
This has to be a GPT-generated script, because if it is not, you should find another hobby. In fact, you should do something else regardless. I fear for the minds you are polluting.
The video is erroneously attempting to expand upon a way to interpret GR while trying to make a novel explanation without elaborating on the framework of such a interpretation. Essentially condensing years worth of physics and philosophical thought in the span of 26 minutes... which they utterly fail at due to the complexity they are dealing with.
I've been looking forward to this video for quite some time. I watched it once, I have some questions and comments but I'll wait until I fully digest the information to say anything yet
Feel free to ask, as there were a lot of abbreviated explanations made for the sake of time! We will of course also be expanding on the topic in future videos.
Another thought: how does GR affect the ether? It seems like it would be that the ether moves towards masses, or something? Let's see that addressed! 🙂
ruclips.net/video/hFlzQvAyH7g/видео.html
henrylindner.net/Writings/BeyondNewtonPE.pdf
Lorentz transformations in aether theory were always meant to be a first order approximation, only. Dialect's model must explain the mechanism of the aether/matter interaction.
In SR, the lorentz transforms are exactly correct.
You are exactly correct.
something i dont understand. if i am using a ruler which moves with me and it contracts, wont everything i meassure would be larger? why are you saying that a contracted ruler will make me think the world is smaller?
Everything around you gets smaller and the ruler gets smaller also... So you yourseld won't find a difference. At least that's what I think he was saying.
I just had a crazy dream about gravity and inertia last night and your video just happens to show up in my RUclips feed today. Interesting.
Finally a physicist who talks about the essence of physics, which is reality. You are a shining example and a source of inspiration and courage for all of us. Thank you once again!
great video i mean it i mean i haven't watched 2 minutes yet but that intro is amazing
Nice thought experiment, however, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have to show that your theory (a) matches all observations made so far, (b) explains something that was not possible before. For example, can this theory be applied to a universe with gravity, or is it stuck with the special relativity world? Can this explain behaviour of dark matter when general relativity cannot? Does this theory play nice with quantum theory? And so on.
He errs in calling it a theory. It's not, precisely becasue it doesn't make testable predictions. It's an interpretation, like copenhagen vs pilot wave vs many worlds vs others. But the question of whether there is an absolute rest frame or not does have implications for other theories, especially QM, so this interpretation shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
Couldn't you test length contraction by having a hoop moving perpendicular to the traveller to that they normally wouldn't fit through, and have them cross paths?
What kind of software do you use in your animations?
it's an editing software
Can you please explain a highly questionable Action Lab video "what if speed of light was slower". Smth tells there's smth wrong with that simulation but i'm not sure what exactly. Especially the rotation part is confusing as hell.
Interesting look. However, I guess it can be a bit difficult to distinguish between the results of physical phenomena and the artifacts of their mathematical descriptions. Sure, the assumption that physical laws are basically the same throughout the universe may make such games easier, but it is another level of trust added to the matrix of the universe.
Do you allow clock synchronization through mechanically symmetrical movement of identically constructed clocks, in particular atomic clocks? This is only local synchronization, but it does avoid light as a synchronizer.
Of course. You always need a reference frame to describe whatever you want to. Motion or rest, acceleration or gravity, free fall or rest - you always embed all these things you are talking about in this frame consisting of coordinates. If you are inside such thing that you are call "world" you define a mathematical, ontological and philosophical frame around you. And RT is all about translating events from one reference frame to another because there is no absolute observer anywhere. The essence of RT is to define such a language and formulation of physical laws and dependencies in which all observers might agree even then if they are looking at different perspectives on the phenomena - covariance.
Well said
In order to generalize this to general relativity, are you going to use the river model to construct some kind of flowing either? Is that why you made the river model video?
11:45 If this is the case, then how do you explain microwaves forming standing waves?
Imma need to watch this more than once
I watched it around 4 times and still i am at a loss.
Dialect, I am absolutely fascinated about your Matrix Theory. I understand it takes alot of time and effort producing these marvelous videos. Just seems a tease getting a bit of your understanding of Relativity a bit of a time. I was wondering is there other source of information about This Matrix Theory? It is fantastic how you understand how these so called experts make us think What?! who do not really understand the theory and cause more confusion. Wow I loved how you demolished the idea of acceleration being the cause of Time dilation with the video of the space plane un free fall about a Mass and a stationary observer firing his boosters. I still have to keep watching your videos about not feeling force... kind of getting there... but not as smart as you.
Planetary formation, big bang theory, and electromagnetism being only a local effect are other areas where I have to nod my head in disappointment at these so called experts.
Thank you for watching! We share your sense of disappointment in the "experts", who once upon a time we believed uncritically. Too many people have opted to simply parrot the main talking points about theories they only half-understand, rather than choosing to acknowledging the limits of their understanding or attempting to push them further.
Our own quest to do so has led us to this video, which merely provides a summary overview of the progress of our understanding -- we still have to tackle the issues of physical length contraction and mass-energy equivalence, but once that is complete we will likely release a comprehensive written treatise on the subject!
Loved the Control reference!
Nothing like watching two dudes argue about whose pencil is bigger with physics.
Exactly! It never gets old! 😂😅😅
Did you just assume their gender?!
I really hope this interpretation has merit, its so much simpler and fits everyone intuition so much better. To me it makes sense, but I'm also some ransom guy on the internet lol
Lmao same
It doesn't. While it's true that the one-way speed of light is in part a matter of convention, the two-way speed of light is always constant. That's what causes the "weird" but observable effects of relativity. And you can't do away with all these effects for all possible inertial frames at once with different ratios for the light travel in each direction unless you use self-contradictory rates.
@@tubebrocoli It's well established that Lorentz Ether Theory is equivalent to SR. This means that all effects of time dilation and length contraction, all Lorentz transformations that is, can be explained by wave clocks in a medium. This means you can demonstrate all principles of SR with sonar equipment in a water tank, with the caveat that in aether theory, all matter is wave excitations in the aether. Unfortunately we can't make sonar detectors from water so you'd have to simulate objective length contraction - which you could otherwise directly observe by watching vortices contract at increasing velocity respective to the medium.
do you personally think this is the most likely answer to what could be going on in the universe? @@chalichaligha3234
@@chalichaligha3234 does Lorentz ether theory account properly for the Kennedy-Thorndike modifications to Michelson-Morely?
I'd love to see a explanation of the Twin Paradox in context of matrix theory!
The previous videous explaining it were a bit hard to grasp, but I hope when explained with absolute space and time, it'll become easier and clearer to understand where the pitfalls lie.
We'll definitely be doing video on it at some point; we haven't forgotten about our Twin Paradox series! For now however, check out our "What Time Dilation Actually Is" video -- this will give you the best idea of what resolves the paradox until we can get to a fuller treatment.
Being unfamiliar with Lorentz's theory, I never got as far as synthesizing it with relativity, but I had been toying with a very similar concept. In particular, I also kept circling around the idea that just because no physical observer could detect it doesn't mean there isn't a reference frame which is universally "at rest". Indeed, I justified this by noting, as you did, that any observations a person can make is necessarily distorted by their own motion through the aether, and so is undetectable, and that this also explains the experimental results. I am very much looking forward to the next video to see the fruition of this line of thought :)
As for the question of length contraction and time dilation, it seems to me that Einstein's explanation is workable in an aether-theory. If we just take his explanation and attach it to an observer in the aether frame, time dilation arises in exactly the same measurement. Length contraction is a little trickier, though, because it is necessary to explain certain effects, but how it arises is less clear to me. This is what I hope to see in the next one.
The thing is that we say the length is contracted/time is dilated, but the width to length ratio will remain the same throughout the entire time of any experiment. it doesn't take up more or less 3 dimensional space so nothing is actually contracted which can be measured simply by the ratios of length to width and noticing that they are constant.
Also, everything exists simultaneously and even though a second may feel like it is longer for one observer than it is in another it doesn't mean that time has actually changed as time is immutable due to everything existing simultaneously. Assuming the speed of light is fixed (I do not due to the Doppler effect, the change of magnitude of energy when experiencing it with EM etc.), it would need to have an "Ether", nothing else could impose that limit onto light itself.
I applaud your remarkable ability to go beyond where any other physicists have taken this!!!!!!
Reminds me a bit of wolfram’s work on the computational universe thing…something like motion decreases number of computations able to be performed per unit space somehow causing space contraction.
I wonder about relativistic perception of FOV as seen by photon in space (moving in lightspeed, so all theoretical lightrays from universe should come from single point in its movement path - aberration of light) vs object just before event horizon (where all lightrays shrunk to point too, but they come from opposite side of movement). Could one say that one is pretty much the same effect, but just symetrical one in terms of space/time? It would be nice to cover these extremes with the same very clear visuals used in this video along with its relativity.
Count me in to that! I would love to see it.
I'm an amateur science enthusiast and I'm completely shocked by this explanation, althought I'll have to watch it maybe 2 times more to fully understand it. I hope you'll publish a scientific work with this very interesting theory! Many thanks for trying to explain it as simple as possible 😃
Good work
entanglement is what defines the boundary between you and any other noun. so your entanglement structure affects the system in what way?
i LOVE this channel
Isn't your realist metaphysics totally buggy when you take into account gravity and a form of strong equivalence principle? You're going to have to mix a first order physics with a second order one, in a weird way. Or do you reject the strong equivalence principle too? Hence, you cannot geometrize gravity?
You seem to assume that geometrization of gravity is a physical reality, while in fact it may be just ... mathematics, here understood as a "perceptive crutch", the Platonic "shades on the wall" ... and troubling enough .. we also do not seem to be able to conjure gravitons, even in thought experiments ...
Why would you need a geometrisation of gravity?
So there is an absolute size of the hypersphere surfacing our universe, where contraction results in fewer planck lengths, so only option is to make time tick slower compared to the surface-aether.
Simple.
20:52 that is the best point you have made wrt this subject
I have a question, does the matrix theory you propose allow for faster than light travel?
It means matter is a wave in a particular type of medium, but there could be another medium in which waves travel faster.
So how do find the point of rest of the ether? If you can't, is it even meaningful physical?
The examples used are of the light beam travelling out (and back) in the same direction as the observer is moving. This makes it easier to see the notion of the different one way speeds. However, I am trying to think through what needs to change if the light beam is moving between mirrors perpendicular to the motion, as in the classic setup for explaining SR. But unfortunately my brain shuts down!
If you do that you get the usual train explanation and in that case the light has to move at an angle to the perpendicular to get to the mirror as the mirror has moved.
Suppose there are 2 spaceship exactly 1 m long and commander standing in between. Commander now orders the ship to go 80% C and asked the crew to measure the length of the ship. The crew of the ship find it 4.9 m because of lenght contraction which was 5m when the ship was at rest to in the front of the commander. Now commander asked the crew of second ship to do the same and they too measured the length 4.9m. Now the commander asked both the ships to move with 80% c and asked to measures each others ship lenght but this time the lenth is 5m becuase both ship being on rest with each other.
The point is how come the crew have 2 different lengthts at the same time.
Fantastic series of videos on relativity! A few suggestions to improve:
-The sound clock is a great illustration however it does not explain well the length contraction. What contracts in this example, the clocks lengths are unchanged? You have to assume that the clock itself is a wave traveling through ether. There are several ideas out there for matter being standing waves (the ether being the medium waving) so the length contraction is the doppler effect on such a wave moving. Maybe for next videos?
-Robot brain clock made of sound waves dictating his age from previous video is another fantastic illustration, but how does this translate to real matter? This would work only for vibrations/motions perpendicular to direction of motion, whats the mechanism in reality?
-In this video you say that in the example where Earth and Mars move relative to ether not only do they contract in the direction of motion but the distance between them contracts. The doppler effect might explain contraction of bodies themself, what could explain the shrinkage of the distance between them? Ether IS the coordinate system that is absolute
Thanks for watching! There are certainly still a lot of issues that need clarification with this model, and you hit on a good number of them. Biggest of all of course is length contraction, which we'll be treating on soon. But definitely there are some very compelling analogies we can again make with wave and sound-behavior, and you are very much on the right track.
In terms of the Earth and Mars moving with a shorter distance between them, you are of course correct that nothing should make the space between them contract in an ether based model. The picture we were envisioning was more in the sense that the solar system as a collective whole was already moving through the ether, and that we didn't need ask why that motion had occurred in the first place.
Certainly if you pick an absolute cosmic frame then entire solar systems and galaxies would experience collective velocities through the ether, which would perhaps affect how they formed in the first place. Or you could go the flowing space route, which asserts that gravitational bodies entrain their ether fields about them, much like electrons entrain their electric fields with their motion. But that of course would seem to imply some even deeper layer of absolute space. Ultimately we haven't delved into cosmological considerations of this model too deeply yet, and we will probably be holding off on that for some time.
Suppose that acceleration affects oscillators. Does that explain differential aging and clock slowing?
If me and my ruler shrink when moving, then if I consider myself and my ruler as stationary, I will measure other objects to be LONGER not Shorter.
I don't understand in which physical world can a smaller ruler measure bigger objects to be smaller
I dont get it either. Beside i dont see how he is going to explain lenght contraction with a physical explanation when there is no need of a physical link between 2 objects moving wrt you to observe a lenght contraction between them
I think the idea is this: if your ruler got shorter, you need more "units" from it to describe other, uncontracted objects. Like, let's say, you measured some object to be of length 5 with your uncontracted ruler. Then your ruler shrunk, its "unit" got smaller, now you need, say, 8 of those smaller units to describe the same object's length. Does that make sense?
@@pavlo2692 yes it makes sense but it's not at all what the STR says. Because from the POV of the moving observer, he sees eveything that is moving bigger whereas the STR says that he should see everything smaller
@@pavlo2692 yes, it makes sense.
So now I measure the other object to be 8 instead of 5. I measure it to be longer.
Why would I change anything to my frame to measure the exact opposite?
damn man! keep up the good work.
Illuminating video. Bergson, by analyzing Relativity through the Lorentzian lens in his book "Duration and Simultaneity", may have been right after all, and was too quickly dismissed in the Einstein-Bergson debate.
Time dilation is a reality which is cumulative hence measurable. mu-meson from sky lives longer because it's clock slows-down. Hafele & Keating experiment showed time dilation is cumulative and non-restoring. Increase in mass is indirectly measurable but restores with decreased speed - like in cyclotrons. Length contraction is a reality but neither cumulative nor detectable but without length contraction Michelson-Morley experiment would give positive result(shift in interference pattern).
Have you published this?
i love this idea (although i think calling Einsteins view solopsistic is a little hyperbolic), it always seemed weird to me that physicists just ignored how incredible the existence of the cosmic rest frame is. Im not an expert but i think it definitely does not pass Occams Razor to assume that the CRF is not a special frame. For now i think ill chose to believe this.
Pre-supposing that there IS a very real space medium ("ether"), then there has to be a *zero velocity rest frame* to which the true speed of light is fixed, and to which all other velocities are referenced.
So how would a zero-velocity rest frame be determined? At present (AFAIK), the logical first place to look would be the CMB (cosmic microwave background) which would be coincident with that rest frame. It so happens that the CMB does display a very slight blue-red doppler shift from one side of the sky to the other, called the 'CMB dipole anisotropy' and its *velocity vector* (the red and blue zones are unfortunately shown backward in this graphic) -
3.bp.blogspot.com/-PQezC3my_eU/U-UHQZ9UGrI/AAAAAAAABAI/OIj5hR6ehCA/s1600/CMBdipole.jpg So you'd subtract 371 km/sec from c, giving the ACTUAL isotropic or 'one way' speed of light, i.e., True C (upper case).
Of course, the figure is approximate due to the dipole anisotropy's low amplitude and resolution. But provisionally at least, it illustrates principle in determining the 'zero velocity rest frame' of the space medium. This hasta have been obvious to academia all along, but to acknowledge it would require admitting that the medium is real, literal and absolute, and not a "vacuum".. but rather a Plenum.
[EDIT.] And BTW, a sidebar or 'spinoff' of the Plenum model would be the flowing-space model of gravity. Over the past century it has been deduced independently by a number of people, beginning with Gullstrand/Painlevé. Here's a couple of recent examples --
henrylindner.net/Writings/BeyondNewtonPE.pdf
ruclips.net/video/hFlzQvAyH7g/видео.html
Now, add the idea that the density of the ether doesn't have to be constant, and that space itself is created by matter/energy, and you've got a physical theory of gravity and general relativity. Like, right now my intuition about gravity is that there's simply more space (or "ether" if you will) where there is more matter, because matter is contentiously creating space around itself. If you think of space like a graph, and you have a particle just randomly moving along that graph, if there is more edges pointing in the +X direction than the -X direction, a particle choosing a vertex at random to go down will tend towards +X (implying there is gravity well in that direction). I suspect you'd reach the same conclusion about waves propagating in such a space.
I strongly suspect you're moving towards towards the same kind of universe described by Wolfram's hypergraph theory. But from an angle that is much more pragmatic, intuitive and top-down.
Feels to me like Wolfram is approaching things from a very abstract mathematical perspective. A bit like string theory.
Addendum: Heh, I see that I really need to read the paper by Lindner you linked to. I randomly scrolled through it and the first thing I land on is the sentence "There are reasons to believe that the destruction of Hadronic matter in nuclear reactions creates space". And then a figure that exactly mirrors an image I've had in my mind about the cosmic expansion for a while now: that it's all this space being created that just accumulates in the void between galaxies that are distant enough.
I wonder if anyone has also had the same idea I have about black holes: The fact that information stored in a black hole grows with the surface area of the black hole, absolutely screams at me: there is no space inside black holes, or very little of it. The creation of space breaks down. And when you have this incredibly dense space accumulating around a region where no more space can be created, of course the amount of information you could possibly put in there can't be bigger than its surface. There is no space inside it in which to store it.
@@auspiciouslywild You have given me a different understanding of what black holes could be. What if they are literally holes in space meaning anything that tries to fall in can't because there is no space to fall into, and anything attempting to fall in creates space around the hole which assuming space has a pressure that it tries to keep could spread the space that exists out further making the hole potentially bigger. Maybe the edges of the universe are actually black holes that space can expand into, these things may sound absolutely bonkers but they are questions worth asking to see if we can find a way to test them.
Why this video is underrated😢
Could the observer always be at rest relative to the ether? Like how the observer is at rest with respect to the receding galaxies?
If this interpretation is mathematically equivalent, and the ether exists, at least as a mathematical convenience, would our inability to perform measurements that are variant with the motion of the ether make its choice of global reference frame analogous to the choice of the Coulomb gauge vs the Lorentz gauge in the decoupled Maxwell's equations? Like its choice is arbitrary mathematically, so we choose the gauge that is most convenient for the current configuration. In the same way, the choice of the ether frame is arbitrary, so we are able to choose the model that fits the waterfall analogy of general relativity? Really looking forward to the next video.
Hypothetically wouldn't you be able to measure the speed of light at the photonsphere without needing a reflection? Or does the spinning of the black hole and proximity to the singularity make it impossible to get an actual measurement
Uh... How would you do that? Why the photosphere in particular?
@@-_Nuke_- because hypothetically the photonsphere is the place where you must orbit at the speed of light as to not pass the event horizon. So you must be able to measure the one way speed of light in these insane conditions
Heh, a cool idea. I guess one can argue, how is that different from light bouncing from a mirror and returning. But in the case of a mirror experiment, light does not follow a geodesic, because it goes back and then forth in a flat spacetime. But when a photon orbits in a photon sphere , it's actually following a geodesic, right? Just in a very curved spacetime. Which would make the situation differ from the mirror bounce? I'm a layman, so no idea really :(@@shiftedprograms86